I would like to look for a right video card for CS5.5 or new CS6 video editing only. I looked at the requirement for my future new PC, but I need your help for providing me more information on the comparsion between GeForce GTX and Quadro.

What does GTX have that Quadro does not have?

What does Quadro have that GTX does not have?

I would like for you to give me a chart on the difference between them like an outline comparsion or column comparsion.

1.Color: Black is like pure black with quadro. And the other colors also. Eventhough my monitor is not 10 bit.

2.Luminans contrast: Luminasity and contrast of images look like better. This is just feeling and very subjective: Pixel creation way is qutie diffirent. I felt as if I use an ati card. Much contrast and luminans.

3.Video quality: This is very very very subjective okey take care : They both do the same thing such as video editing but I feel like quadro final result is better. Maybe I always tick best render and best depth boxes.

4.Antialias:This is certian quadro is better.

Futuristic:

Next years and monts will bring a new rule : In video production and news people will use much 3d

so quadro will be better for me.

negatives

1.Cuda cores: Yes quadro has less cuda cores

But here comes a question: Yes cuda core is a horsepower.

But is it only horse power that pulls my car? No

here is a case: Ten minuties ago I was having a previev rendering in pp.

What you are describing is the use of an uncalibrated monitor. There is no difference in color, contrast, luminance or video quality between GTX or Quadro on a properly calibrated monitor. What you are experiencing is the same as with different TV models. They have different display settings from the factory and without proper calibration, they show different levels of black, luminance, contrast etc. But who uses a TV with factory settings? Who uses a video card with default driver settings? Every editor should calibrate his monitor or TV first.

First calibrate, load the resulting profile into the video card and then you will not see any difference. Your sleeping horses are the result of slow components in your system, like that disk setup. Your sleeping horses are comparable to a low horsepower car but with all gears available. You can put in more horsepower by using a GTX, but if you limit yourself to using only first gear, the difference is negligent.

Most LCD (or LED-backlit LCD) monitors are still of the TN panel variety, which can only reproduce 6-bit color. And even a good IPS panel-based monitor can cost $500 to $800. And the lower-priced monitors are increasingly S-IPS (a cheaper version of IPS that sacrifices a bit of image quality in favor of faster response times) or of the VA type (which does not offer the best of both worlds - but rather, the poorer of both worlds). That's because most people want things cheaper, not necessarily better. Thus, if a monitor can't faithfully reproduce the output of even a GTX, let alone a Quadro, why waste the money on such an expensive and slow GPU? Good monitors that can take full advantage of the 10-bit output of a Quadro can cost well into the thousands (or even tens of thousands) of dollars.

the lower-priced monitors are increasingly S-IPS (a cheaper version of IPS

Uh...may I ask your source on that? Wikipedia claims that IPS was "plagued by slow response time and a low contrast ratio", and that "IPS has since been superseded by S-IPS (Super-IPS) in 1998, which has all the benefits of IPS technology with the addition of improved pixel refresh timing.

The performance difference comes in the firmware controlling the card.[citation needed] Given the importance of speed in a game, a system used for gaming can shut down textures, shading, or rendering after only approximating a final output—in order to keep the overall frame rate high. The algorithms on a CAD-oriented card tend rather to complete all rendering operations, even if that introduces delays or variations in the timing, prioritising accuracy and rendering quality over speed.

Is it still true that GTX has better performance for less money concerning video editing. Aren't there any advantages with the drivers of the quadro cards which should support the needs of programs other than games more?

Absolutely GTX will out perform Quadro's when you compare prices . A GTX 1080Ti has 3584 CUDA cores an sells for about sells for 750 USD, The Pascal version of the Quadro with same 3584 CUDA cores is a mere 9000 USD. Qudro main advantage is if you have an expensive 10-bit monitor

I'm planning to buy the recent Dell XPS 15, which has a i7 7300HQ and GTX 1050 and for me will have 32GB Ram. Do you think I will be able to able to do ,multicamera editing with at least two 4K cameras with intraframe codec and two more Full HD cameras? That's actually a common task for me in the future.

Since you are dealing with 4k and HD you might want to consider at least a good GTX 1060 because evidently you will be scaling to HD I have the EVGA 06G-P4-6163-KR which is superclocked and that Memory Clock is running at 2002MHz or effective Memory Clock 8008 MHz but I have been able to overclock it to 9600 effective MHz. For great CUDA reslts

There is a newer version the EVGA 06G-P4-6768-KR which has more thermal sensors built in and does cost a little more but may be a better buy in the long term.